[libvirt] [PATCH 02/30] storagefile: qcow1: Check for BACKING_STORE_OK

[Cole Robinson]

On 10/11/19 9:05 AM, Michal Privoznik wrote:
> On 10/7/19 11:49 PM, Cole Robinson wrote:
>> Check explicitly for BACKING_STORE_OK and not its 0 value
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Cole Robinson <crobinso at redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   src/util/virstoragefile.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/util/virstoragefile.c b/src/util/virstoragefile.c
>> index 51726006e7..1549067c48 100644
>> --- a/src/util/virstoragefile.c
>> +++ b/src/util/virstoragefile.c
>> @@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ qcow1GetBackingStore(char **res,
>>        * used to store backing format */
>>       *format = VIR_STORAGE_FILE_AUTO;
>>       ret = qcowXGetBackingStore(res, NULL, buf, buf_size, false);
>> -    if (ret == 0 && *buf == '\0')
>> +    if (ret == BACKING_STORE_OK && *buf == '\0')
>>           *format = VIR_STORAGE_FILE_NONE;
>>       return ret;
>>   }
>>
> 
> We can make qcowXGetBackingStore() return the enum type instead of plain 
> int. But that can be done in a follow up (trivial) patch. When doing 
> that, both qcow1GetBackingStore() and qcow2GetBackingStore() and also 
> getBackingStore() callback can use the same tretement then.
> 
> // after seeing future patches
> 
> Ah, you're removing some functions, but you get the idea.
> 

FYI I've pushed the series now. I think after everything is applied 
there isn't anything left to do here regarding your suggestion? But 
correct me if I'm wrong

Thanks,
Cole